Thanks. They are in JPG, not RAW. exif is copied over. Minimal compression setting (whatever that means on the camera's user interface).
My takeaway from your answer is, as usual - "it depends". Most of the photos were takens in typical opportunistic "catching the kid doing something funny" reasonable light situations, were additional artefacts are less likely to happen. I also don't plan to blow them up to huge sizes. For now it sounds like a +1 for re-compression of normal-light photos. Thanks. --Amos On 20 June 2012 13:30, Marc Volovic <m...@bard.org.il> wrote: > You do not say whether the originals are in JPG formst or in RAW format. > If the latter, they contain a lot of information that can be safely > discarded (it is used for photo-processing which - in re-compressing - you > have decided to forgo. > > If your originals are JPG files, the re-compression is just that. Now, a > JPG compression on JPG compression adds more artefacts, depending on what > has been photographed. > > And, you will not be able to enlarge and print anything really huge. > > C'est touts. > > M > > > ---MAV > m...@bard.org.il > > > > > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 6:13 AM, Amos Shapira <amos.shap...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I'm preparing a disk-on-key with family photos to send to my mum and >> noticed something a bit unexpected. >> Most of the photos were taken with a Canon EOS 300D, maximum resolution >> and minimum compression. >> Some were taken with Android phone and iPhone 4. >> I use Digikam on Debian to manage my photos. >> The total space of the original images (including movies, which weren't >> touched) was ~7.6Gb. >> The total space after re-compression using default parameters (75%, JPEG, >> no resizing) - < 1Gb. >> >> I think I saw before that simple re-compression saves a lot of disk >> space, but this is about 90% reduction (take into account that this >> includes copied untouched .mp4 movie files). >> From eye-balling the images on the computer screen (24", 1920x1280) they >> look just fine. They are going to be printed on regular sized photo paper, >> not made into bus-stop posters or anything. >> >> Am I missing something? Should I still send the larger images (I think I >> can just barely fit them into an old 8Gb disk-on-key) or will the smaller >> ones do fine? >> >> It also makes me wonder about my own photo stash - it takes a few dozens >> of Gb's now. If I can recompress them without losing noticeable quality >> (assume I never intend to display/print them larger than an A4 page) then >> this could save me a huge amount of disk (+backups, handling, easier >> shipping to relatives on the other side of the world etc). >> >> Thanks, >> >> --Amos >> -- >> [image: View my profile on LinkedIn] >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/gliderflyer> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-il mailing list >> Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il >> http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il >> >> > -- [image: View my profile on LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/in/gliderflyer>
_______________________________________________ Linux-il mailing list Linux-il@cs.huji.ac.il http://mailman.cs.huji.ac.il/mailman/listinfo/linux-il
